[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190520172041.GH11972@sasha-vm>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 13:20:41 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, wen.yang99@....com.cn,
Markus.Elfring@....de, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
nicolas.palix@...g.fr
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:52:37AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 20 May 2019, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > A semantic patch has no access to comments. The only thing I can see to
>> > do is to use python to interact with some external tools. For example,
>> > you could write some code to collect the comments in a file and the lines
>> > on which they occur, and then get the comment that most closely precedes
>> > the start of the function.
>>
>> How dangerous is missing of_node_put? AFAICT it will only result into
>> very small, one-time memory leak, right?
>>
>> Could we make sure these patches are _not_ going to stable? Leaking
>> few bytes once per boot is not really a serious bug.
>
>Sasha,
>
>Probably patches that add only of_node_put should not be auto selected for
>stable.
I can filter them out, but those are fixes, right? Why are we concerned
about them making it into -stable?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists